Eugenics: the death of the defenseless. Eugenics is the doctrine of selection of the human race. The connection between eugenics and other sciences.

Test

Eugenics as a science

Introduction

Humanity has always strived to become better. Every small step a person takes is aimed at becoming faster, taller, stronger, smarter, healthier, richer, more beautiful, etc. It's a natural desire to want to become the best version of yourself. This desire was transformed into theory and founded such a doctrine as eugenics.

Eugenics refers to the artificial improvement of breeds and species, including the human species. In the scientific understanding, this is the social control of human evolution. It is believed that this practice turned out to be scientifically incorrect and socially harmful.

Now eugenics is a thing of the past, and a heavily tarnished one at that. And the goals set for eugenics by its founders and not achieved by it have become completely the responsibility of medical genetics, which is quickly and successfully moving forward.

In recent decades, many of the basic premises of eugenics have been scientifically discredited, and the eugenics movement has lost its influence (although it retains some adherents). At the same time, thanks to modern advances in biomedical sciences and technology, some of the goals of eugenics have been partially achieved.

In this work we will reveal the concept of eugenics, the basic principles and types of this doctrine. Let's find out how this thought developed, what forms it took and in what form it came to us.

1. The concept and essence of eugenics

Eugenics (from the Greek “eugenes” - good kind) is the doctrine of preventing the possible deterioration of a person’s hereditary qualities, and in the future - about the conditions and methods of influencing the improvement of these qualities.

The term “eugenics” was first proposed by the English biologist F. Galton in the book “The Heredity of Talent, Its Laws and Consequences” (1969). Despite the fact that progressive scientists set humane goals for eugenics, it was often used as a cover for reactionaries and racists, who, based on false ideas about the alleged inferiority of individual races, peoples and social groups. They, relying on nationalist and class prejudices, justified racial, national and class discrimination.

There are intense ideological debates surrounding eugenics. Some scientists believe that the very concept of “eugenics” is incompatible with the scientific worldview. Others believe that the content of eugenics, its objectives and the most reasonable means of achieving them will fall to human genetics, anthropogenetics and medical genetics.

Sciences that study the heredity and variability of the characteristics of the human body have shown that the diversity of people is associated both with their hereditary inclinations and with living conditions (natural-climatic, socio-economic, cultural, etc.). The study of identical twins, in particular their mental development, as well as genealogical observations indicate that heredity plays a large, but by no means exclusive role in determining a person’s mental, including mental, abilities. If his morphological characteristics are determined primarily by heredity, then his mental characteristics and behavior are also strongly influenced by the environment and social conditions: upbringing, education, work activity, the influence of the team, society, etc.

Medical genetics can do a lot in this direction, the tasks of which include both studying the action of mutagens - chemical, radiation and other environmental factors that damage the hereditary structures in human germ cells, and prevention (including by improving the environment ) harmful mutations that threaten the health of future generations. Marriages between relatives are especially conducive to the manifestation of harmful mutations, because at the same time, the probability of receiving a usually suppressed (recessive) harmful trait from both parents sharply increases. This explains the fact that in isolated human groups (isolates), where, as a rule, closely related marriages occur more often, the percentage of hereditary diseases and deformities increases. The harmful consequences of closely related marriages were noticed in ancient times, which led to their condemnation, prohibition by customs, and subsequently legal prohibition. To prevent the spread of harmful mutations and their combinations by limiting marriage between carriers of such mutations, medical genetic consultations are used, the purpose of which is to provide for the possibility of manifestation of harmful heredity in the offspring of people entering into marriage. Sufficiently accurate predictions in this sense can already be made for many hereditary diseases, for example, hemophilia, color blindness, etc. These are protective (preventive) methods that prevent the deterioration of a person’s hereditary qualities. At a higher level of scientific development in the future, the possibility of using reasonable, morally and socially justified influence on the human race is not excluded. Highly gifted people constitute the invaluable wealth of society, one of the conditions for its progress, and the question of the possibilities of identifying them, the conditions of upbringing and education cannot but attract the attention of scientists. All this requires further in-depth research in human genetics with the increasingly widespread use of methods and achievements of molecular genetics.

History of eugenics

All people are imperfect. Already at an early age, you can notice that some children are gifted with health, but weak in intellect, others cannot boast of physical beauty and strength, but are ahead of their peers in mental development. Therefore, when you meet a person who combines beauty, strength, intelligence, and morality, he seems like some kind of miracle of nature. Such people evoke different feelings in those around them - some have admiration, some have envy. But scientists many years ago began to think about how, for what reasons, such rare, comprehensively gifted people are born. And is it possible to make sure that there are more and more of them in human society?

The first person to pose this question was Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin. An aristocrat by birth, Galton began studying the genealogies of the famous aristocratic families of England. His task was to establish the patterns of inheritance of talent, intellectual talent, and physical perfection. Galton believed that if to obtain a new breed it is necessary to select the best breeding animals, then the same results can be achieved by targeted selection of married couples. The best must choose the best so that healthy, beautiful, gifted children are born as a result. Galton proposed creating special conditions for the “reproduction of genes” of outstanding people from aristocratic families. This is the beginning of eugenics.

Regardless of Galton in Russia, the doctor V.M. Florinsky came to the same idea - humanity must improve its “breed”, gradually becoming more intelligent, beautiful, and talented. In 1866, Florinsky published the work “Improvement and Degeneration of the Human Race,” in which he substantiated his opinion.

However, what Galton and Florinsky dreamed of is only the front side of the coin. There is also a downside, which played, perhaps, the main role in the fate of eugenics.

Any breeder knows that in order to create a new breed with improved properties, approximately 95 percent of the animals must be culled. The worst should not participate in reproduction - this is the principle of any selection. And here eugenics directly faces insoluble problems lying in the field of human ethics and morality.

What Galton proposed for the improvement of the human race was later called positive eugenics. But very soon another movement emerged - negative eugenics. Its adherents believed that it was necessary to prevent people with mental and physical disabilities, alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals from having children. Negative eugenics has attracted criticism from the very beginning. After all, this kind of “selection” was carried out back in ancient Sparta, where weak and sick children were destroyed. The result is known - Sparta did not produce a single outstanding thinker, artist, artist, but became famous for its strong and brave warriors.

History knows many examples when great people had physical disabilities or suffered from severe hereditary diseases, including mental ones.

Moreover, it is known that some mental illnesses, the development of which is associated with a subtle, vulnerable mental organization, are genetically associated with talent in music, mathematics, and poetry.

The inheritance of a particular trait leading to the development of a disease is still a probabilistic process, and it cannot be predicted. For example, a child can “receive” a gene that causes vascular pathology from a sick father, or maybe from a healthy mother. And vice versa, parents can be completely healthy, but have genes that determine the development of the disease - these genes are in a latent state, or, as geneticists say, in a recessive state. Whether these genes appear in their offspring or not is a matter of chance. It all depends on possible combinations of genes, their interaction with each other and, of course, on social conditions, upbringing, psychological environment, and to some extent on luck.

Scientists' objections to negative eugenics did not convince its supporters. Another question, this time from the area of morality, did not stop them: who are the judges? In fact, who should decide that one deviation from the norm is unacceptable, while another is quite acceptable for the future?

However, in 1915-1916, 25 American states passed laws on forced sterilization of the mentally ill, criminals, and drug addicts. Similar laws existed in Scandinavia and Estonia. Negative eugenics reached its apogee in Nazi Germany. In 1933, for example, 56,244 mentally ill people were sterilized in Germany. The Nazis believed that within humanity there should be a core of “high-quality” individuals who would take part in the formation of the future human race. All others - weak, sick, crippled, simply not up to standard - must either be destroyed or sterilized. What came out of this theory in practice is well known to everyone.

In some countries, however, eugenics took a different route. In England, a number of measures were taken to encourage large families among people of the Anglo-Saxon race and to create favorable conditions for the upbringing and development of gifted children.

In the Soviet Union, the Russian Eugenics Society was created in 1920-1921. The society published a special publication on eugenics - "Russian Eugenics Journal". It published prominent genetic scientists of that time - N.K. Koltsov, A.S. Serebrovsky, A.I. Filipchenko. In the magazine one could find studies of the genealogies of famous noble families, for example, the Aksakovs and Turgenevs. Many articles actually laid the foundations of human genetics and medical genetics in our country.

However, soon the contradictions of eugenics began to emerge, which, apparently, are inseparable from it. N.K. Koltsov, for example, believed that eugenics is a utopia, but it will be “the religion of the future century.” A.S. To improve the human race, Serebrovsky proposed separating procreation from love and practicing artificial insemination. These ideas of scientists aroused sharp criticism, and in 1929 the Russian Eugenics Society ceased to exist, and the Russian Eugenics Journal ceased publication.

In the post-war years, interest in eugenics declined, but began to revive again at the end of the twentieth century.

3.Types of eugenics

There are positive and negative eugenics.

The goal of positive eugenics is to promote the reproduction of people with characteristics that are considered valuable to society (lack of hereditary diseases, good physical development, sometimes high intelligence).

The goal of negative eugenics is to stop the reproduction of persons with hereditary defects, or those who are considered physically or mentally defective in a given society.

The “Russian Eugenics Society”, created in 1920, rejected negative eugenics and began to deal with the problems of positive eugenics.

The line between negative and positive eugenics is arbitrary, and the world's major religions currently reject both types of eugenics. In China and India, diagnosing the sex of the fetus is widely practiced and girls are often aborted. For example, according to Indian-Canadian studies, approximately 500 thousand unborn girls are aborted in India every year. “There are 927 girls for every 1,000 boys under the age of 6 in this country. Globally, this ratio averages 1,050 girls to 1,000 boys.” This disrupts the natural ratio of boys and girls, which leads to negative consequences for society. This can rather be called negative eugenics - the artificial removal from the population of people who are perceived as undesirable in a given society.

4. Problems of eugenics

What is the nature of heredity that eugenics seeks to change? How successfully and in what ways can it be changed? What goals should eugenics aim at?

We know that at first each individual is a fertilized egg, during the development of which, in addition to individual characteristics, characteristics are formed that are common to all members of a given species, race and family. Thus, a fertilized egg has the potential and ability to develop in a certain direction, but within the limits imposed by the environment. This means that we must understand, firstly, the mechanism of heredity (i.e., how a fertilized egg realizes its capabilities) and, secondly, the relative influence of heredity and environment on the formation of an individual’s characteristics.

Regarding heredity, genetics teaches us that heredity is determined by genes. These hereditary units are present in equal numbers in both sex cells (egg and sperm), which are united during fertilization. Thus, heredity is formed by two parents. It is important that each gene inherited from the mother corresponds to a similar gene inherited from the father. In such pairs, the genes are not always the same, since new variants arise as a result of rare but irreversible changes called mutations. When paired genes differ (a condition referred to as heterozygous), one of them, called dominant, has a decisive effect on the trait being determined; the manifestation of the second gene - the recessive one - will be hidden, although it is passed on from generation to generation without changes. Each individual appears to have many recessive genes, but most of them are not expressed. The significance of this situation for eugenics is quite clear: a significant part of the genes of any person, and accordingly the entire population, is hidden, and in relation to them eugenic measures must be taken blindly.

Many traits, particularly intelligence, are determined not by two genes, but by a particular combination of dominant genes (from different pairs), perhaps together with some homozygous recessive genes. These combinations are very rarely inherited entirely and unchanged for the reason that an individual does not inherit all genes from one parent, but only half from each, or more precisely, one gene from each pair of parent genes. The choice of a specific gene from each pair is random. Genes located in different chromosomal pairs are selected by chance and, even being in the same pair of chromosomes, can be partially recombined. Therefore, the greater the number of genes that determine a given trait, the less likely it is that their specific combination will be transmitted unchanged to the next generation. Almost all combinations disintegrate during the maturation of germ cells, and when the egg and sperm unite, new combinations are formed. This reassortment and recombination of genes has a very special significance for eugenics, since most of the socially significant characteristics of a person depend on many genes, the combinations of which cannot be preserved, whether they are good or bad. Moreover, a certain gene that gives an unfavorable effect in most combinations can be beneficial in some one combination, and vice versa. It is very rare that we can assess the full effect of a gene; it has to be judged by the final result of the interaction of genes.

Galton was the first to try to evaluate the relative influence of heredity and environment on the formation of individual characteristics of an individual. A study of family cases of genius and special talents convinced him that “nature prevails over the influence of education in cases where education does not differ greatly among the people being compared, when the differences in the conditions of education do not exceed those that usually occur between people of the same social position in the same country. Subsequent studies confirmed this conclusion. This is especially true for monozygotic, so-called. identical, twins who develop from one fertilized egg and therefore have identical heredity. It has been shown that even when twins are separated in early childhood, they remain remarkably similar. This similarity is most pronounced in physical characteristics (eye and hair color, blood type, baldness, etc.), which are virtually identical in twins of this type.

The inheritance of mental abilities began to be studied intensively after standard intelligence tests were developed. Identical twins show very similar results. If one of a pair of twins is mentally retarded, then in 88% of cases the second one is too. Among fraternal twins, a match for this trait occurs in only 7%. Identical environmental conditions have about the same weight in achieving similar intelligence scores as genetic differences between fraternal and identical twins. Of 20 pairs of identical twins reared separately, ten pairs were virtually identical, six pairs differed by 7-12 IQ units, and four pairs differed by 15-24 IQ units. The latter figure comes from a pair of twins, one of whom studied 13 years more than the other. Thus, no significant differences were found between identical twins reared apart, except in cases where there was a very large difference in the length of education and the cultural level of the families.

In general, twin studies show that similar genetic makeup tends to lead to similar characteristics unless individuals are exposed to very different environmental conditions. Only extremely carefully conducted experiments could establish whether a given specific difference in external conditions is capable of influencing a given trait or not; such connections must be established for each characteristic separately. In the formation of an individual's characteristics, the environmental effect is intricately intertwined with the influence of genetic factors.

5. Genetic changes

Eugenics is interested, first of all, in the frequency of certain traits in a given population and, accordingly, specific genes that determine these traits or influence their formation. The study of evolutionary processes has shown that gene frequencies change under the influence of four main factors: 1) mutations; 2) natural or artificial selection; 3) case; 4) isolation or, conversely, migration.

As a result of mutations, new gene variants appear, without which there cannot be a long process of evolutionary changes, neither eugenic nor any other. Mutation of a specific gene usually occurs very rarely. Mutation frequencies have been determined for several human genes; their average is approximately 1:50,000 per generation. This means that, for example, in a population of 50,000 people, one person will have the hemophilia gene, not inherited from parents, but resulting from a mutation in the gene that determines normal blood clotting. Therefore, unless a way to prevent this mutation is found, no measure to remove the gene from the population will be successful. In the best case, its frequency can be reduced to the level of the mutation rate. Therefore, it is impossible to completely get rid of hemophilia; its lower limit is determined by the mutation frequency of 1:50,000.

Carriers of unfavorable hereditary traits are less likely than normal to reach adulthood and have offspring; or they, having reached maturity, have fewer descendants due to celibacy or sterility. In any of these cases, the frequency of the corresponding genes decreases in the next generation. However, many favorable genes are also lost, since selection rejects individuals, i.e. the entire set of genes, and not just the gene that causes the most harm.

Random changes in gene frequencies and the isolation effect are not significant in our time, since they are noticeable only in small populations, where even a harmful gene can randomly spread, and a beneficial one can be eliminated. In small populations there is also a closer degree of relatedness between those entering into marriage. In itself, such inbreeding does not change the frequency of genes, but increases the proportion of homozygotes, as a result of which recessive genes become the field of selection. Inbreeding is not harmful if the line does not have harmful recessive genes. Since the Middle Ages, small populations have merged into large ones; Along with this, migration processes, which acquired in the 20th century. unprecedented scale, lead to the mixing of diverse populations. As a result, a significant part of recessive genes has become heterozygous and does not experience selection pressure, and therefore can significantly increase its frequency.

By creating a social environment, humanity unwittingly smoothed out the rigidity of natural selection. The price we will ultimately have to pay for the advances of modern medicine is an increase in the frequency of a number of unfavorable genes whose effects we have learned to mitigate. Many thousands of diabetics, previously doomed to death in childhood, are now saved by insulin, can lead relatively normal lives and pass on the genes responsible for this disease to their descendants. Myopia is also not a significant disadvantage for life these days. Probably no one would like to restore the opposite picture, but medicine itself is constantly increasing the burden that it has to bear.

6. Eugenics and ethical standards

No matter how humane the motives of eugenics are - to make humanity healthier, more beautiful, more gifted and, ultimately, happier - there is some flaw in its very essence. It does not fit into the complex structure of human society, woven from contradictions not only biological, but also legal, social, psychological, and religious.

After all, any improvement, one way or another, begins with a division into bad and good, viable and weak, talented and untalented. Separation - and then selection, culling of options that do not meet certain requirements. At the level of human society, such selection inevitably means discrimination.

From the point of view of pure science, eugenics also contains flaws in its premises. For example, its main task is to change the ratio of harmful and beneficial signs towards useful ones. Indeed, in some cases it can be said that there are “harmful” varieties of genes and “beneficial” ones. However, according to the most optimistic estimates of geneticists, in 200-300 years it would be possible to increase the number of “useful” genes in the human population by only hundredths of a percent.

The futility of rejecting “harmful” genes was also shown by Nazi experiments: at one time in Nazi Germany, mentally ill people were practically destroyed, and at first fewer children with disabilities were actually born. But 40-50 years have passed, and now the percentage of mental patients in Germany is the same as it was before. Another stumbling block is that eugenics attempts to control complex human behavioral traits, intelligence and talent, which are determined by a large number of genes. The nature of their inheritance is very complex. In addition, culture, language, and educational conditions play a big role in the development of talent and intelligence. All this is transmitted to the child not through genes, but through communication with loved ones and teachers. We should not forget that talent is not the presence of some special genes, but, as a rule, their unique, amazing combination, which is not repeated in generations. In addition to the combination of genes, talent is determined by many more reasons, among which a person’s fate, his environment, education and, of course, a moment of luck play a significant role, although one may not agree with this. Most likely, humanity will part with the temptations of eugenics. An alternative could be the widespread dissemination of knowledge about hereditary diseases and the development of a network of medical and genetic consultations, with the help of which in many cases the birth of children with severe genetic diseases can already be avoided.

Conclusion

Eugenics is a term created by Francis Galton in 1883 to denote the scientific and practical activities of breeding improved varieties of cultivated plants and breeds of domestic animals, as well as protecting and improving human heredity. Over time, the word “eugenics” began to be used in the latter sense. Kellycott defined eugenics as “the social control of human evolution.”

There are positive and negative eugenics. The goal of positive eugenics is to increase the reproduction of individuals with characteristics that can be considered valuable to society, such as high intelligence and good physical development or biological fitness. Negative eugenics seeks to reduce the reproduction of those who may be considered mentally or physically underdeveloped or below average.

Bibliography

eugenics science heredity

1. Glad D. Future human evolution. Eugenics of the XXI century // Zakharov, 2005.

2.Gnatik E.N. Philosophical problems of eugenics: history and modernity // Questions of Philosophy, No. 6, 2005.

Hen Yu.V. Theory and practice of improving the human race // Questions of Philosophy, No. 5, 2006.

Yudin B.G. Morality and genetics // Ecology and life, No. 8, 2005.

Eugenics - [Electronic resource]. URL: http://traditio-ru.org/wiki/Eugenics (access date: 06/04/2014)

Eugenics: Science of the Future or Inhumane Experiment? - [Electronic resource]. URL: http://moikompas.ru/compas/eugenics (access date: 06/04/2014)

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

As you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Francis Galton did not dream of breeding a “new race” when he presented the new science of eugenics to the public. Thanks to the Nazis, the reputation of eugenics was so tarnished that the word itself continues to be a dirty word. Meanwhile, this science could save people from illness, suffering and even death itself...

And how well it all started!

At first, eugenics was received with a bang. The most outstanding people at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries willingly stood under the banner of the new science, which declared its task to improve the human race and prevent human suffering. “Because of congenital defects, our civilized human race is much weaker than that of animals of any other species, both wild and domesticated... If we spent a twentieth of the effort and money spent on improving the breed of horses and cattle in improving the human race , what a universe of genius we could create!” Bernard Shaw, Herbert Wells, Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt readily agreed with these reasonings of Francis Galton. And how can you disagree? Everything in a person should be perfect! Chekhov's thought lives, but does not win, encountering human imperfection. For each of us is imperfect. Look around, and you will probably notice how “unequally, unequally” nature has endowed everyone: some have been blessed with excellent brains, but have saved on health, while others have been blessed with an unusually attractive appearance, but have also been given a vile character. That’s why I admire people who combine beauty, kindness, intelligence, and strength at once. There are few of them. I would like more...

Actually, the ancients began to think about improving the human race. The same Plato (428-347 BC) in his famous “Politics” spoke about the need for state intervention in regulating marriages, explained exactly how to select spouses in order to produce physically strong children with outstanding moral principles. A famous “selection center” in ancient times was Sparta. There, babies, deprived of the physical qualities necessary for future warriors, were simply thrown off the cliff without any extra thought. It is absolutely pointless to criticize or condemn the Spartans today: such were the morals of that society, where boys were born for only one purpose - to replenish the army. By the way, this goal was achieved: and today everyone remembers that “in a healthy body there is a healthy mind, one Spartan is worth two”...

The best of the best

Years flew by, centuries passed, and mere mortals were still tormented by their own imperfections and wondered how nice it would be to live surrounded by completely pleasant people, both externally and internally... And while they were suffering from Manilovism, scientists were thinking about how to achieve this on practice.

So, the first person to take this issue seriously was the English scientist - geologist, anthropologist and psychologist Sir Francis Galton. A piquant biographical detail: Sir Francis was a cousin of Charles Darwin and ardently supported his theory of evolution. Being an aristocrat, Galton did not go far for research materials, but began to study the genealogies of the famous noble families of England. He tried to establish patterns of inheritance of talent, intelligence and strength. Then, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, it was generally fashionable to engage in all kinds of selection and selection. The fact that Gregor Mendel’s laws on the inheritance of traits were rediscovered played a role. Galton did not remain aloof from new and old trends. He reasoned that since the selection of the best breeding animals is necessary to obtain a new breed, then the targeted selection of married couples should bear fruit. Moreover, it seemed so simple: in order for healthy, beautiful and talented children to be born, it is necessary that the best of the best become their parents! Actually, that’s why the new science was called eugenics, which translated from Greek means “the birth of the best.” Here is what Galton himself said on this subject: “We define this word to designate a science which is by no means limited to the question of proper mating and marriage laws, but, mainly in relation to man, studies all the influences that improve the race, and these influences tend to be strengthened, and all influences which worsen the race are tended to be weakened.” Notice! There is not a word here about the need to breed “eugenically valuable populations.” And yet, very soon a split emerged in the eugenics society. And that's why. Any breeder knows: in order to develop a new, improved breed, about 95% of the “source material” - animals, birds, seeds, etc., etc. must be culled. The main postulate of any selection: the worst (weak) should not participate in reproduction . It was this pitfall that eugenics stumbled upon. This is where the new science collided head-on with human ethics and morality.

Split

It seemed to the most ardent adherents of the new science that it was not enough to improve the hereditary qualities of a person using only genetic principles. It is this kind of eugenics that is called positive. But eugenics, which was later called negative, received support in society. Her followers decided that for the sake of preserving humanity as a whole, it was necessary to prevent the birth of offspring from people with mental and physical disabilities, alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals. Here, as an excuse, it is worth noting that in the second half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, a completely civilized and enlightened society was seized by the fear of degeneration. Newspapers regularly reported on the growing number of mentally ill people and other “damage” to human nature - mental, physical and moral. The data was confirmed by science. In this light, the ready-made solution for the improvement of humanity as a species, offered by negative eugenics, seemed more than acceptable.

Indian method

The United States was the first to dare to fight the degradation of humanity. In 1904, Indiana passed and implemented a sterilization law. “Inferior” individuals such as alcoholics, the mentally ill and repeat criminals were forcibly sterilized. Actually, the name of the state gave the method the name Indian. I must say, it turned out to be very popular: one way or another, but in 26 years it was tested in another forty states.

What was the Indian method? Nothing to do with medieval horrors.

By and large, it can even be called humane: the man’s seminal ducts were simply cut. That is, he could be sexually active, but lost the ability to reproduce. All socially unreliable elements had to undergo a similar procedure. “Dodgers” were mercilessly punished: jailed for three years or fined $1,000. And negative eugenics itself was popularized in all available ways: films were made, books and articles were written, special institutions were created...

With this approach, “unusable human material” was practically excluded from the reproduction process. One problem: as a rule, people who were unable to achieve social success were considered “unhealthy”. There was a substitution of concepts: with eugenics they tried to heal the “ulcers of society” - poverty, alcoholism, vagrancy, crime and prostitution.

Crazy? Castrate!

The “eugenic” issue was approached differently in the Nordic countries. Beginning in the late 1920s and 1930s, governments in Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Finland pursued a deliberate policy of sterilizing the mentally disabled. As in the USA, they were sterilized, thereby depriving them of the possibility of transmitting harmful genes.

What is noteworthy is that everywhere the law on sterilization was adopted with a bang. No one—neither the public, nor scientists, nor doctors*—saw anything reprehensible in it, and therefore did not oppose it. Thus, in an atmosphere of complete consensus, a mentally retarded child, after appropriate testing, could easily be taken to a closed institution. Do you want your child back? Kindly sterilize it. The same procedure was followed with adults. They were simply informed that you were sick and therefore it was decided that you should be taken care of... And such patients, as a rule, had nowhere to go. Of course, the issue of ill health of a particular individual was determined by a special commission. But who was on that commission? And when and how! The fate of some “patients” was decided by the ministries of health, while the fate of others was decided by ordinary doctors, and sometimes even a pastor, together with representatives of the guardianship and/or public education authorities. So the “reliability” of the conclusions in most cases, presumably, was doubtful... But then for some reason no one thought about it. In Scandinavia, everyone was so carried away by the idea of improving society through castration that at the end of the 1930s they were ready to follow the path of the United States and begin sterilizing prostitutes, tramps and all other “predisposed to antisocial behavior”...

A new breed of people

Everything changed dramatically in 1933, when the National Socialists came to power in Germany. Actually, it was the Nazis who hammered the last nail into the coffin of eugenics, beginning to justify the racial policy of the Third Reich with its help. All “non-Aryans” were recognized as “subhumans” and in order to improve “the breed of people were subject to destruction...

As for the much-loved sterilization, in Germany it took on a truly unprecedented scale: in 1942 alone, more than a thousand people were sterilized - and this was among the civilian population. The number of victims of eugenics in prisons and concentration camps was in the tens of thousands. Nazi doctors practiced new methods of sterilization on prisoners - radiation, chemical, mechanical, etc., etc. In essence, these were sophisticated tortures. Then, at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi “researchers” were recognized as executioners. And a taboo was placed on innocent eugenics...

Geneticist is man's friend

Actually, no one has officially lifted this taboo. And yet, positive eugenics is now beginning to make a comeback. For all research related to human DNA is nothing more than manifestations of eugenics. What, for example, does deciphering the human genome provide? You can find out what hereditary diseases a person is predisposed to and prevent them. Example?

Yes please! In the United States, children with amaurotic Tay-Sachs idiocy were often born among Ashkenazi Jews. This is a hereditary metabolic disease that affects the child’s nervous system. As a result, the baby is doomed to an early death. But the situation changed after Ashkenazi representatives began to be tested for this pathology. In the case where both spouses were carriers of the “sick” gene, fetal studies were carried out during pregnancy. And if it turned out that the embryo suffered from Tay-Sachs disease, the pregnancy was simply terminated.

Or rather, they gave parents a choice: to leave the sick child or not. The most common answer was: “No!” They refuse to continue pregnancy, as a rule, even in cases where the child is diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb. In America, for example, more than 90% of fetuses that receive such a terrible verdict are aborted.

Meanwhile, a child suffering from Down syndrome can be born even to completely healthy parents. No one is immune from this. So, in theory, today you should visit a geneticist before conceiving a child. Especially if serious illnesses were observed in families on the paternal or maternal side. Medical genetic counseling will make it clear: are you taking risks when deciding to have a baby, or are your fears zero? In this way, you can insure yourself against many problems in the future.

In the USA, England, Sweden and Finland, future parents are already being offered to examine the karyotype - a set of chromosomes - in advance in order to identify the presence of possible chromosomal rearrangements and reduce the risk to nothing... What is this if not eugenics? What is this if not human improvement? What is this if not deliverance from suffering? What is this if not humanism?

Eugenics with Professor Shepilevsky

And how well it all started!

The best of the best

Nazi eugenics

So, the first person to take this issue seriously was the English scientist - geologist, anthropologist and psychologist Sir Francis Galton. A juicy biographical detail: sir

Francis was Charles Darwin's cousin and an ardent supporter of his theory of evolution. Being an aristocrat, Galton did not go far for research materials, but began to study the genealogies of the famous noble families of England. He tried to establish patterns of inheritance of talent, intelligence and strength. Then, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, it was generally fashionable to engage in all kinds of selection and selection. The fact that Gregor Mendel’s laws on the inheritance of traits were rediscovered played a role. Galton did not remain aloof from new and old trends. He reasoned that since the selection of the best breeding animals is necessary to obtain a new breed, then the targeted selection of married couples should bear fruit. Moreover, it seemed so simple: in order for healthy, beautiful and talented children to be born, it is necessary that the best of the best become their parents! Actually, that’s why the new science was called eugenics, which translated from Greek means “the birth of the best.” Here is what Galton himself said on this subject: “We define this word to designate a science which is by no means limited to the question of proper mating and marriage laws, but, mainly in relation to man, studies all the influences that improve the race, and these influences tend to be strengthened, and all influences which worsen the race are tended to be weakened.” Notice! There is not a word here about the need to breed “eugenically valuable populations.” And yet, very soon a split emerged in the eugenics society. And that's why. Any breeder knows: in order to develop a new, improved breed, about 95% of the “source material” - animals, birds, seeds, etc., etc. must be culled. The main postulate of any selection: the worst (weak) should not participate in reproduction . It was this pitfall that eugenics stumbled upon. This is where the new science collided head-on with human ethics and morality.

Split

Indian method

Check-up at the Eugenics Clinic

What was the Indian method? Nothing to do with medieval horrors.

Crazy? Castrate!

Pedagogical eugenics

A new breed of people

Geneticist is man's friend

Eugenics head measurement

But the situation changed after Ashkenazi representatives began to be tested for this pathology. In the case where both spouses were carriers of the “sick” gene, fetal studies were carried out during pregnancy. And if it turned out that the embryo suffered from Tay-Sachs disease, the pregnancy was simply terminated.

Video: Eugenics and population reduction programs

Greek eugenes - thoroughbred). A system of beliefs about the possibility of improving a person’s hereditary qualities through selection and control over the transmission of hereditary factors. For a long time, Europe was an arena for the activities of obscurantists and reactionaries who used pseudoscientific formulations to cover up the carrying out of genocide (mass extermination of representatives of other races and the sick in Nazi Germany). However, a humane, progressive application of E’s ideas is also possible. In particular, the positive role of medical genetics and genetic consultations is undeniable.

Eugenics

A selective breeding program for the purpose of "improving" human abilities through careful selection and transfer of hereditary characteristics. The idea of eugenics was considered impractical, immoral and generally outdated.

EUGENICS

Eugenics is the science that deals with the improvement of the human race based on the principles of genetics. The main object of this study is the identification and, if possible, elimination of hereditary human diseases.

EUGENICS

The study of patterns of human heredity with the goal of improving the species through selective breeding. Positive eugenics focuses on encouraging individuals with "desirable" traits to reproduce, while negative eugenics focuses on preventing individuals with "undesirable" traits from producing offspring (often using unethical procedures such as forced sterilization). Unfortunately (or should we say fortunately), no agreement was reached on what characteristics would be desirable to perpetuate. Since the founding of the discipline by Francis Galton in the 19th century, eugenicists have not been able to free themselves from their own ethnocentrism.

Eugenics

from Greek eugenes - good kind) - the doctrine of hereditary human health and ways to improve it. The principles of E. were first formulated by F. Galton in 1869 in his book “The Heredity of Talent.” The term itself was proposed by him in 1883. Interest in eugenic ideas was especially significant in the first quarter of the 20th century. Progressive scientists (F. Galton, G. Meller, N.K. Koltsov, Yu.A. Filipchenko) set humane goals for E.: first of all, the study of human hereditary qualities and the creation of conditions for increasing the birth rate of people with favorable hereditary inclinations. This direction of E. is called positive. However, eugenic ideas were also used for other purposes - birth control for people with mental illness, people prone to alcoholism, crime, etc. For these purposes, a number of countries in Europe and America passed laws on forced sterilization and immigration restrictions (negative eugenics). The ideas of negative E. were used to justify discrimination and racism (for example, in Nazi Germany), which discredited E. as a scientific discipline and led to the refusal to use the term “E.” itself. In modern science, many problems of positive E. are solved within the framework of human genetics and medical genetics.

Eugenics

The doctrine of the hereditary prerequisites for individual human development, the conditions and patterns of inheritance of giftedness and talent (F. Galton). In fact, it is a reflection of the solution to the eternal question of the role of environment and heredity in the development of genius and talent towards the predominance of the second. With the help of E., racists try to substantiate the pattern of racial and national inequality from a biological point of view.

Eugenics

Greek eugenes - thoroughbred) - F. Galton's theory (1870) about the possibility of improving the human species by methods of selective reproduction (for example, sterilization, obstacles to childbearing by persons with signs of degeneration, artificial marriages, etc.). Positive eugenics focuses on encouraging the procreation of individuals with desirable, adaptive traits, while negative eugenics focuses on preventing children from parents with undesirable traits or inherited disease traits. In the United States, from 1905 to 1980, twenty states passed laws prohibiting persons with mental disabilities, epilepsy and criminal tendencies from having children, and about 8,000 people were sterilized. The generally humane goals of eugenics were thoroughly discredited by people with very specific views on what a person should be and what should be the ways to improve his nature. Thus, the straightforward Hitlerite Nazis created at one time a special institute for the reproduction of “Aryans”, but the experience of its activities turned out to be completely disappointing: purebred males and selected females after mating produced, contrary to expectations, thin and sickly offspring. Currently, in connection with the amazing achievements of genetics, more advanced technologies have appeared, for example, genetic engineering, cloning, but very complex problems, including ethical ones, stand in the way of their practical use, excluding “social terror”.

Eugenics

from Greek eugenes - purebred) - 1) selection of racial properties based on ideology (where one human race with special phenotypic and general properties is proclaimed above all others), which does not recognize either the principle of equality or the principle of personalism. In history, E. has served as an ideological basis for violence against some minorities, and is now practically used in some artificial insemination technologies and in recommending abortion if human embryos do not meet acceptable “general conditions”;

2) an influential scientific direction of the first half of the 20th century, within which the task was set of improving the hereditary characteristics of the human population (physical and intellectual). E.'s methods were aimed at stopping the genetic degeneration of humanity associated with the development of medicine and social support of individuals, as a result of which the effect of natural selection was weakened. Within the framework of negative E., the idea of depriving defective citizens (alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, etc.) of the opportunity to procreate and pass on “unworthy” genes by inheritance is advocated. Within the framework of positive education, the task is to provide advantages for the reproduction of the most gifted (physically and intellectually) people. In recent decades, genetics has begun to develop again in connection with the rapid progress of molecular genetics, cloning, and other biomedical research, requiring that ethical and sociocultural factors of intervention in hereditary programs be taken into account and that they be regulated and controlled based on the benefit of the human population.

In 1883 (from the Greek Eugenés - “thoroughbred”) to designate scientific and practical activities to breed improved varieties of cultivated plants and breeds of domestic animals, as well as to protect and improve human heredity. Over time, the word “eugenics” began to be used in the latter sense. Kellycott defined eugenics as “the social control of human evolution.”

In recent decades, many of the basic premises of eugenics have been scientifically discredited, and the eugenics movement has lost its influence as a social force (although it retains some adherents). At the same time, thanks to modern advances in biomedical sciences and technology, some of the goals of eugenics have been partially achieved. For example, genetic counseling helps expectant parents if there is reason to fear that their child will inherit a serious disease such as hemophilia, sickle cell disease or Huntington's chorea. Having assessed the degree of risk, spouses can take an adopted child or decide to have their own. Moreover, diagnostic testing of the fetus using amniocentesis and other tests can detect a range of genetic defects before the baby is born. If serious anomalies are detected, parents have the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy in a timely manner.

This article touches on the provisions of genetics only in connection with eugenics in its traditional sense. On the modern development of medical genetics.

Historical aspect.

Social control of human evolution is not a new idea. Many peoples practiced infanticide to rid society of deformed or defective individuals and to prevent their numbers from increasing. This distinguished the ancient Spartans, who used many of the quite modern eugenic measures to maintain dominance over the helots (serfs). Thus, for members of the ruling class, emigration was limited, marriages and births were encouraged by the state, and bachelors were subject to a special tax. A harsh system of physical education was maintained, which the weak and crippled could not withstand. Periodically, mass beatings of helots were carried out to reduce the number of this, considered inferior, part of the population.

Plato's proposals for a eugenic structure of society are well known. He believed that children with defects or those born from defective parents should not be raised. Chronically disabled people and victims of their own vices should be denied medical care, and moral degenerates should be executed. On the other hand, to improve the "breed" it is necessary to encourage temporary unions of selected men and women so that they leave high-quality offspring.

Problems of eugenics.

The examples given are sufficient to identify the essence of the basic issues that arise when attempting to “socially control human evolution.” What is the nature of heredity that eugenics seeks to change? How successfully and in what ways can it be changed? What goals should eugenics aim at?

Heredity.

Regarding the first problem, genetics teaches us that heredity is determined by genes. These hereditary units are present in equal numbers in both sex cells (egg and sperm), which are united during fertilization. Thus, heredity is formed by two parents. It is important that each gene inherited from the mother corresponds to a similar gene inherited from the father. In such pairs, the genes are not always the same, since new variants arise as a result of rare but irreversible changes called mutations. When paired genes differ (a condition referred to as heterozygous), one of them, called dominant, has a decisive effect on the trait being determined; the manifestation of the second gene - the recessive one - will be hidden, although it is passed on from generation to generation without changes. A person with a pair of genes (Bb), one for brown eyes (B), the other for blue eyes (c), will have brown eyes, and the presence of the gene causing blue eyes will remain completely invisible. A blue-eyed person must inherit two blue eye genes, one from each parent. (The presence of identical paired genes is referred to as homozygosity.) Dominance is not always achieved, and in some cases it is possible to observe the manifestation of both genes acting together. For example, a pair of genes, one of which determines blood type A, and the other determines blood type B, together give blood type AB. Nevertheless, each individual apparently possesses many recessive genes, but most of them are in a heterozygous state and therefore do not appear. The significance of this situation for eugenics is quite clear: a significant part of the genes of any person, and accordingly the entire population, is hidden, and in relation to them eugenic measures must be taken blindly.

Many traits, particularly intelligence, are determined not by two genes, but by a particular combination of dominant genes (from different pairs), perhaps together with some homozygous recessive genes. These combinations are very rarely inherited entirely and unchanged for the reason that an individual does not inherit all genes from one parent, but only half from each, or more precisely, one gene from each pair of parent genes. The choice of a specific gene from each pair is random. Genes located in different chromosomal pairs are selected by chance and, even being in the same pair of chromosomes, can be partially recombined. Therefore, the greater the number of genes that determine a given trait, the less likely it is that their specific combination will be transmitted unchanged to the next generation. Almost all combinations disintegrate during the maturation of germ cells, and when the egg and sperm unite, new combinations are formed. This reassortment and recombination of genes has a very special significance for eugenics, since most of the socially significant characteristics of a person depend on many genes, the combinations of which cannot be preserved, regardless of whether they are good or bad. Moreover, a certain gene that gives an unfavorable effect in most combinations can be beneficial in some one combination, and vice versa. It is very rare that we can assess the full effect of a gene; it has to be judged by the final result of the interaction of genes.

Heredity and environment.

Galton was the first to try to evaluate the relative influence of heredity and environment on the formation of individual characteristics of an individual. A study of family cases of genius and special talents convinced him that “nature prevails over the influence of education in those cases where education does not differ greatly among the people being compared... [i.e.] when the differences in the conditions of education do not exceed those that are usual take place between people of the same social status in the same country.” Subsequent studies confirmed this conclusion. This is especially true for monozygotic, so-called. identical, twins who develop from one fertilized egg and therefore have identical heredity. It has been shown that even when twins are separated in early childhood, they remain remarkably similar. This similarity is most pronounced in physical characteristics (eye and hair color, blood type, baldness, etc.), which are virtually identical in twins of this type.

The inheritance of mental abilities began to be studied intensively after standard intelligence tests were developed. Identical twins show very similar results. If one of a pair of twins is mentally retarded, then in 88% of cases the second one is too. Among fraternal twins, a match for this trait occurs in only 7%. The IQ correlation for identical twins reared together is almost as high (0.881) as the correlation for body weight (0.917). On the other hand, the IQ correlation between identical twins reared apart is no higher than that of same-sex fraternal twins reared together. This means that identical external conditions have approximately the same weight in achieving similar indicators of intelligence as genetic differences between fraternal and identical twins. Of 20 pairs of identical twins reared apart, ten pairs were virtually identical, six pairs differed by 7–12 IQ units, and four pairs differed by 15–24 IQ units. The latter figure comes from a pair of twins, one of whom studied 13 years more than the other. Thus, no significant differences were found between identical twins reared apart, except in cases where there was a very large difference in the length of education and the cultural level of the families.

When it comes to the most common mental illnesses, there are slightly larger differences between identical twins. For schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and epilepsy, coincidences were recorded in identical twins in 68% of cases, while in fraternal twins - in approximately 15%. Inheritance of the unusual electrical activity of the brain in epilepsy is determined by a single dominant gene; but the appearance of epileptic seizures, although they are observed only in people with this type of electrical activity, may also depend on some external influences. This is an example of a gene with reduced “penetrance” (likelihood of expression). Low penetrance, like recessivity, is one of the most important factors reducing the effectiveness of eugenic measures, since in some individuals it will hide the presence of the gene.

Even with respect to such characteristics as social behavior and character, identical twins show significantly greater similarity than same-sex fraternal twins. Five studies of delinquency among twins yielded similar results. Of the total sample, including 104 pairs of identical and 113 pairs of fraternal twins, the coincidence rate for the former reached 67%, and for the latter – 33%. These results, of course, do not mean that crime, mental illness, mental abilities and other similar traits are inherited in a fixed and unchanging way, but, on the contrary, provide sufficient reason to believe that life experience and external conditions can suppress, reduce or change the manifestations of such traits . In general, twin studies show that similar genetic makeup tends to lead to similar characteristics unless individuals are exposed to very different environmental conditions. Only extremely carefully conducted experiments could establish whether a given specific difference in external conditions is capable of influencing a given trait or not; such connections must be established for each characteristic separately. In the formation of an individual's characteristics, the environmental effect is intricately intertwined with the influence of genetic factors.

Genetic changes.

Eugenics is primarily interested in the frequency of certain traits in a given population and, accordingly, specific genes that determine these traits or influence their formation. The study of evolutionary processes has shown that gene frequencies change under the influence of four main factors: 1) mutations; 2) natural or artificial selection; 3) case; 4) isolation or, conversely, migration.

Mutations.

Selection.

The rate at which the frequency of a gene decreases under the influence of selection depends on the percentage of people in the population in whom the gene appears. For example, if a completely dominant gene reduces viability by half (and accordingly is transmitted to the next generation half as often as a normal one), then after 20 generations, or approximately 500 years, its frequency will be 1 million times less than the original and ultimately almost will undoubtedly reach a level where it will be maintained only by newly emerging mutations. As a consequence, any harmful dominant trait will be very rare as a result of natural selection, so there is no point in fighting it with eugenic measures. However, reduced penetrance may slow the removal of a dominant gene from a population; The manifestation of the gene in later periods of life also leads to the same result. For example, Huntington's chorea is the result of a single dominant gene. This is undoubtedly a serious nervous disease, but since on average it begins at 35 years of age, it does not have a significant effect on vitality and fertility. On the other hand, for a recessive trait that determines half the viability, the frequency of the gene after 20 generations will decrease by only 40%. Moreover, the extent of this reduction in frequency will fall with each successive generation as more and more carriers of the gene become heterozygotes.

Factors of randomness and isolation.

Ethical considerations.

Despite the fact that eugenics is based on genetics, it is not itself a science, since it is guided primarily by social values. Perhaps there could be general agreement that the absence of significant physical and mental defects and the presence of good health, high mental abilities, good adaptation and nobility of soul are worthy goals that eugenics should set for itself (although it is still likely that diversity nature is better than uniformity of type). But how permissible is the restriction of human freedom associated with the control of reproduction? From the point of view of genetics, and not only that, “there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us” that it is very difficult to assess the manifested hereditary characteristics of a person; Numerous hidden recessive genes or genes with low penetrance make a general assessment of heritability almost impossible. It is also impossible to determine to what extent the characteristics of an individual are the result of environmental influences, especially when we are talking about qualities that are of primary interest to eugenics: good health, high intelligence, etc. The underworld sometimes provides terrible examples of human degeneration, but what would people with a perverted psyche become in a favorable environment? Are their defects an inevitable consequence of genes? This is highly doubtful. The answer can only be given by an experiment in which the negative influence of the environment is excluded from childhood. It is easier to create optimal living conditions for people than to change gene frequencies through clever selection.